MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030369851 · doi:10.1017/s0048577201002281

Neurophysiological correlates of verbal and nonverbal short‐term memory in children: Repetition of words and faces

2001· article· en· W2030369851 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra L. Hepworth, Joanne Rovet, Margot J. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNonverbal communicationRepetition (rhetorical device)Verbal memoryCognitive psychologyTerm (time)Short-term memoryDevelopmental psychologyCognitionLinguisticsWorking memoryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neurophysiological correlates of verbal and nonverbal memory have been extensively studied in adults, but comparable investigations of children are limited. A memory paradigm that is well established with adults is the repetition task, which finds a positive shift in the ERP waveform in response to repeated items, called the "repetition effect." This is thought to represent the brain's memory trace for previously seen information and is reported predominantly at midline frontal and parietal electrodes. We recorded ERPs in thirteen 11- to 14-year old children during repetition tasks of words and faces. Performance was better and ERP latencies shorter for the word than the face task. Although a repetition effect similar to adults was seen at parietal electrodes with increased positivity to repeated items, increased negativity was observed at frontal electrodes; this suggests that the neural substrates of recognition memory continue to develop beyond 11 to 14 years of age. The demonstration of a repetition effect in children provides a basis for studying the neural correlates of specific childhood memory deficits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207